Research: Republicans are far more likely to deny "global warming" than "climate change."

A while back, in a famously leaked talking points memo, GOP pollster and messaging guru Frank Luntz advised those wishing to thwart energy reform to use the term climate change rather than global warming—because it made the problem sound less urgent and less “frightening” to the American public. (The same memo advised making “the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.” Nice.) But the strategy may have backfired—or simply been turned inside out.

Ironically, new research finds that Republicans are far more likely to say they believe “climate change” is happening than “global warming.”

Writing in the journal Public Opinion Quarterly, a research team led by University of Michigan psychologist Jonathon Schuldt reports Republicans are far more skeptical of “global warming” than of “climate change.” In an experiment conducted as part of a large survey, the researchers found 44 percent of Republicans endorsed the notion that “global warming” is real, but 60.2 percent said the same of “climate change.”

For Democrats the distinction is seemingly unimportant. Around 86 percent of Democrats believe in climate change and global warming interchangeably. (Among Independents, 74 percent said that climate change is happening, while 69.5 percent acknowledged global warming.)

So, it does matter what words you use. But I don’t think we should necessarily try to drop either term.

As Jacobs points out, these findings seem to indicate that “the partisan divide over the issue is either overwhelmingly enormous or potentially bridgeable, depending upon the terminology one uses.” And as he points out, the research does bring up interesting questions about trends in polling on climate issues. In fact, whatever words advocates or opponents of energy reform choose to use, it probably matters a lot what language pollsters use when trying to determine public opinion about climate change. Jacobs explains:

These findings point to a problem for pollsters, whose “choice of term seems somewhat haphazard” when surveying public opinion on the topic. Any polls that suggest swings of public opinion on this topic should be read with caution, taking note of the specific terminology that was used.

As for explanations for why the two labels elicit such different reactions, the researchers propose some possible answers.

First, global warming suggests just that: warming and only warming. “Global warming” sets up the expectation of noticeably higher temperatures—an expectation that’s been ridiculed in the familiar talking points of climate science deniers who (almost gleefully) point to winter storms, heavy snowfall and any kind of cold weather to question the scientific reality of man-made climate change.

Climate change, on the other hand, “lacks a directional commitment and easily accommodates unusual weather of any kind,” write the researchers. This is important because as we’ve seen in other research that reveals a a phenomenon called “visceral fit,” people are more likely to say they believe in global warming if they happen to be “experiencing warm temperatures at the moment the question is asked —even if they’re indoors.” (Also from McClure’s Tom Jacobs and Grist).

Second, perhaps because of years of conservative rhetoric about the issue (and strict use of the term), “global warming” connotes a human-made phenomenon. Quite rightly. But conservatives are more likely to deny the science on this one too.

Back to the original question (and I get asked quite often). What should we say? Climate change or global warming?

I think Jacobs may be suggesting we might be better off scrapping “global warming” for good. But I’m not ready for that. For one, the term would be hard to shake. It’s entrenched. Second, I think both terms add something to the conversation. Research shows that each term triggers different feeling and carries with it different meanings for people depending on things like worldview and political party—and, in my opinion, it would be a shame to lose the range of connotations that come with each.

We certainly don’t want to lose the potential to motivate an informed base nor forfeit the urgency-factor tied up in the term “global warming.” For these reasons, I’ve often advised climate policy messengers not to eschew one or the other but to use both terms, mixing both “climate change” and “global warming” into their communications. I think that’s still my advice, even if, in light of this new research, we choose to emphasize “climate change” for more conservative audiences.

And, to be accurate, “climate change” and “global warming” are technically two different things. Generally, it’s not worth getting too far into the weeds trying to explain. But in his new book Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years On Earth, Mark Hertsgaard illustrates the whole thing in a clear, compelling way that deserves repeating: “Think of global warming as the equivalent of a fever and climate change as the aches, chills, and vomiting the fever can cause.”

Comments

mememine

March 8, 2011 at 11:19 am

Obama didn’t even mention the climate change crisis in his State of the Union Address and IPCC funding has been pulled by the Republican voted majority. Carbon markets have collapsed and world governments have walked away from the scientific warnings of unstoppable warming. So why are these scientists not marching in the streets about this crisis and why are they not at least acting like this is as planetary emergency? Shouldn’t they be on CNN and Oprha? Why is the world not treating this CO2 climate crisis like the emergency the UN says it is?I’ve never felt comfortable telling our children that CO2 is going to cause out of control warming for them or their children so should we reconsider this whole issue of CO2 causing pollution still? What now? Is the climate change movement sustainable for another 25 years?

Using Frank Luntz’s approach [and he does grok political language] I suggest environmentalists refer to “climate destruction.” If anyone suggests this is not accurate, ignore them and continue to repeat the phrase. Climate destruction, climate destruction, climate destruction….

In my new book, The Nature of College: How a New Understanding of Campus Life Can Change the World, I use the term (coined by Hunter Lovins, I think) “global weirding.” It’s exactly what’s happening, and doesn’t sound as gradual as “global warming” or “climate change.”

Using multiple terms to describe the same phenomenon has given the environmentalist movement an Orwellian reputation and muddles perceived motives. American people aren’t the most politically engaged but they tend to be pretty good at asking, qui bono? Once you start using different terms but keep the same definition and the same remedies it sets off peoples BS radar and they start looking for ulterior motives because it gives the impression that the problem isn’t whats important but the solution. The use of multiple terms to define the issue has done greater harm to the credibility of climatology than anything else.

I recently heard the term Climate Hazard Mitigation. It was described by a UW scientist that flooding, landslides, temperature increases, reduced snowpack, retreating glaciers,increases in mean sea level and sea surface temperature are all happening right now. If we know this is happening then we need to not only acknowledge it, but also develop and implement mitigation and adaptation efforts now.

Stay up to date on the Northwest's most important sustainability issues.

Research Areas

Founded in 1993, Sightline Institute is committed to making the Northwest a global model of sustainability, with strong communities, a green economy, and a healthy environment. We work to promote smart policy ideas and monitor the region's progress towards sustainability.